7 ms·

Another thing I found interesting is that he earns $800 / month from a total of about 3 million listens. I wonder how this compares to the royalties from a radi

Another thing I found interesting is that he earns $800 / month from a total of about 3 million listens. I wonder how this compares to the royalties from a radio play from a popular local radio station? Comparatively, my dad has a moderately successful youtube channel, his most popular video has 18m views, and the next 3m. He has 66k subscribers. In an average month he'd earn ~£300 or so. Though usually quite a lot more around Christmas.

CobrastanJorji 6y ago
For the radio, in the US, artists are not paid a cent. Only the songwriters and publishers are paid.
- rewgs 6y ago
  True, but an indie artist is nearly always the songwriter and publisher (no one else owns the publishing rights, hence “independent”). So it’s a fair comparison, and unfortunately, all else being equal, streaming woefully underperforms to radio to the point of tears.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - zdragnar 6y ago
    Maybe it is different in other areas of the country, but even in the nearby metro area, there are at most two or three "indie" stations (that is being generous, since I can only think of one) not counting the university stations that have virtually zero physical reach. Streaming might not pay much, but at least it is possible to be heard at all I suppose.
    - rewgs 6y ago
      What do you mean by the term “indie” here? Are the stations themselves not affiliated with larger corporations? Or are they mainly playing independent artists? Or both? I’m a professional musician and categorically reject the “but at least it is possible to be heard at all” angle. No. That is bullshit. Spotify is replacing BOTH album sales and radio play, and yet it pays multiple orders of magnitude worse than either.
      - zdragnar 6y ago
        That's fair; I am not a musician and have no thoughts on whether spotify or youtube or Amazon whatever or physical records are best. As to your first question, I think in my area it is both, though I was mainly thinking in terms of "stations that dont play top 10 or 40 hip hop / pop / country / faux rock".
  - mattmcknight 6y ago
    So a radio play gets $0.12 and goes out to 10,000 listeners. Amazon Music Unlimited pays $0.012 per stream, or $120 for 10,000 listeners. Spotify pays $0.00318 per stream, or $31.80 per 10,000 listeners. Maybe radio does haven't that many listeners? But by my math, if your radio play goes out more than 265 people, you are getting less per listen than on Spotify. The real loss is the $15 10 track CD, which someone would have to listen to 471 times to reach Spotify pricing.
    - fao_ 6y ago
      > which someone would have to listen to 471 times to reach Spotify pricing. You might have misphrased, but in the event you didn't: How does listening to a CD generate revenue?
      - sameerds 6y ago
        I think the comparison goes somewhat like this: selling one CD puts X dollars in the creator's pocket. How many times need a track be played on Spotify to generate the same number of dollars? The answer is 471, I think.
        fao_ 6y ago
        Right, but the way it was phrased was that it was the CD that was being listened to. I was curious.
        mattmcknight 6y ago
        Yeah, I was saying if you bought a CD you would pay $15 for 10 tracks, or $1.50 per track. You would have to listen to that CD 471 times for the cost per listen per track to reach what Spotify pays the artist per stream.
    - rewgs 6y ago
      Terrestrial radio isn’t paying based on the number of listeners. The radio station is paying for a license to broadcast the music (so that people listen to the ads in between, just like TV), a portion of which goes to the songwriter(s), and the publisher(s), and so on. Audience size has nothing to do with it. Embedded in what you’re saying is the expectation that radio plays/streams/etc are primarily for “exposure.” It’s a tired argument and not one any professional musician cares about past a certain point, especially considering that, yes, radio plays ideally drive album sales. But in the world of Spotify, streaming replaces both. What matters is that a [radio station | streaming company] is licensing my music so that they can have something to attract people to in order to expose them to ads. Without the music, the model doesn’t work. Sure, some people pay to not have ads — I don’t care. That should only raise, or at best have a neutral effect on, my per-stream rate. You’re right that the real loss is the CD purchase. Radio plays used to not only pay me and THEN lead to that further CD income, but now Spotify has replaced both and pays far worse than either. “But Spotify pays $31.80 for 10,000 streams while radio only pays $0.12 for the same exposure!” I hear you saying. Wrong. Spotify pays $0.00318 per stream while radio pays $0.12 per “stream” (broadcast), and that’s the only number that matters (due to the aforementioned way in which radio works). So, not even counting the much larger cost of CD sales, Spotify has reduced my income by nearly 38x. This is all fuzzy math, but that checks out with my anecdotal experience and talking with older folks who were selling gold or platinum records pre-Napster. Streaming is NOT okay where it is right now. As a music listener I can’t argue that it’s not a better product, but as a music creator having my income slashed by at least 38x isn’t worth it. To give you an idea of a still-decent avenue for income making music and how far it’s fallen, I’m primarily a composer for film/TV, and broadcast royalties for a single broadcast of a single minute of underscore can pay between $0.99 to a few dollars for broadcast, cable, terrestrial TV. On the other hand, an entire yearly quarter’s worth of earnings for that same minute of music on a streaming service (untold thousands of streams) rarely pay a single dollar — usually more in the single-digit cent range. Do the math — it’s worse than 38x. On a recent royalty statement I calculated that streaming services paid 70x worse than cable. And to top it off, some streaming services are outright refusing to pay legally mandated writers’ royalties (the portion I’m supposed to retain and get paid for, no matter what, by law). It’s moved to cable, too — Discovery tried to pull a stunt last year where they just decided “no more royalties.” They walked it back, thankfully, but we all took it as a warning shot. Imagine your coding salary getting slashed from $100k to $2k, and imagine never having benefits in the first place, and having had all the costs associated with doing the job shifted from the company to you over the last twenty years, and you’ll get an idea of what it’s like to be a working musician or composer nowadays. breath To further clarify my point about streaming: Radio and albums were how people consumed music in the old days — the deal was that if you want something on-demand, you gotta shell out and buy the thing. Otherwise, endure ad breaks while waiting for the song you want to come on, listen to it once until who knows when, and hopefully you like all the other music along the way. Right? Now, we can listen to any music we want at any time, on demand. Album ownership is pretty much moot. And that’s great! Again, as a music listener, I love it. But this means that we’re getting the benefits of album ownership in the format of radio. What do people demand more — the benefits, or the format? Obviously there’s a bit of intertwining between the two, but I’m sure most people would say “I care more about being able to listen to what I want when I want” than “I care about being able to stream music” (even though obviously the latter enables the former). This is why piracy was so great for music listeners — it enabled the former. Now, for a small fee, we get the convenience of radio and the benefits of not only album sales, but also piracy, which we now have to compete with. They’re basically the same thing, though: you “own” the album and can thus listen to it whenever you want. At the end of the day, though, we’re paying for the more important of the two (album ownership) with the payment model of the lesser-valued (radio). Radio licenses worked for stations because they were (and continue to be) distributed amongst a large number of artists and labels, and could be negotiated down via the leverage that radio was ultimately driving album sales. Now, those ad payments are distributed amongst literally hundreds of thousands of more artists, and instead of a radio station going cheaper with the argument “but this will lead to more album sales via exposure,” Spotify can just use its leverage of “well, fuck you, what else are you gonna do?” It’s a mob mentality. They’re essentially the only game in town and they know it. Furthermore, not all streams are equal — just as radio stations would license in order to play a popular song more often (getting more ears glued to the ads in between), Spotify doesn’t pay Beyoncé and Joe Amateur the same per-stream rate. The lions get the lion’s share and the rest get the scraps divided up between them — but “the rest” is the overwhelming majority of the artists present on Spotify. The curve is exponential. Consumers are getting a categorically better product in every conceivable way and yet the payment to the actual creators of the product, the reason they’re actually there — to listen to the music - has gone down by such a degree that it’s laughable. It’s an unbelievable amount. It’s disastrous on a scale that is difficult to comprehend unless you live it. Music is rapidly becoming a field that only the already-extremely-rich can do professionally.
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  This is the exact opposite of everywhere else in the world tbf.
sireat 6y ago
300 pounds for 66k subscribers seems low by the standards of the yesterday. Presumably this income is solely through Youtube ads nothings else. By the old media standards (newspaper/TV/radio) reach of 66k would be good for a medium sized city.
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
  You are probably right, he could probably make more from it if he put in more effort but it's mostly something he does for fun. I remember the days when people would go full-time on YouTube with less subscribers than that.

CobrastanJorji 6y ago

For the radio, in the US, artists are not paid a cent. Only the songwriters and publishers are paid.

rewgs 6y ago
True, but an indie artist is nearly always the songwriter and publisher (no one else owns the publishing rights, hence “independent”). So it’s a fair comparison, and unfortunately, all else being equal, streaming woefully underperforms to radio to the point of tears.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- zdragnar 6y ago
  Maybe it is different in other areas of the country, but even in the nearby metro area, there are at most two or three "indie" stations (that is being generous, since I can only think of one) not counting the university stations that have virtually zero physical reach. Streaming might not pay much, but at least it is possible to be heard at all I suppose.
  - rewgs 6y ago
    What do you mean by the term “indie” here? Are the stations themselves not affiliated with larger corporations? Or are they mainly playing independent artists? Or both? I’m a professional musician and categorically reject the “but at least it is possible to be heard at all” angle. No. That is bullshit. Spotify is replacing BOTH album sales and radio play, and yet it pays multiple orders of magnitude worse than either.
    - zdragnar 6y ago
      That's fair; I am not a musician and have no thoughts on whether spotify or youtube or Amazon whatever or physical records are best. As to your first question, I think in my area it is both, though I was mainly thinking in terms of "stations that dont play top 10 or 40 hip hop / pop / country / faux rock".
- mattmcknight 6y ago
  So a radio play gets $0.12 and goes out to 10,000 listeners. Amazon Music Unlimited pays $0.012 per stream, or $120 for 10,000 listeners. Spotify pays $0.00318 per stream, or $31.80 per 10,000 listeners. Maybe radio does haven't that many listeners? But by my math, if your radio play goes out more than 265 people, you are getting less per listen than on Spotify. The real loss is the $15 10 track CD, which someone would have to listen to 471 times to reach Spotify pricing.
  - fao_ 6y ago
    > which someone would have to listen to 471 times to reach Spotify pricing. You might have misphrased, but in the event you didn't: How does listening to a CD generate revenue?
    - sameerds 6y ago
      I think the comparison goes somewhat like this: selling one CD puts X dollars in the creator's pocket. How many times need a track be played on Spotify to generate the same number of dollars? The answer is 471, I think.
      - fao_ 6y ago
        Right, but the way it was phrased was that it was the CD that was being listened to. I was curious.
        mattmcknight 6y ago
        Yeah, I was saying if you bought a CD you would pay $15 for 10 tracks, or $1.50 per track. You would have to listen to that CD 471 times for the cost per listen per track to reach what Spotify pays the artist per stream.
  - rewgs 6y ago
    Terrestrial radio isn’t paying based on the number of listeners. The radio station is paying for a license to broadcast the music (so that people listen to the ads in between, just like TV), a portion of which goes to the songwriter(s), and the publisher(s), and so on. Audience size has nothing to do with it. Embedded in what you’re saying is the expectation that radio plays/streams/etc are primarily for “exposure.” It’s a tired argument and not one any professional musician cares about past a certain point, especially considering that, yes, radio plays ideally drive album sales. But in the world of Spotify, streaming replaces both. What matters is that a [radio station | streaming company] is licensing my music so that they can have something to attract people to in order to expose them to ads. Without the music, the model doesn’t work. Sure, some people pay to not have ads — I don’t care. That should only raise, or at best have a neutral effect on, my per-stream rate. You’re right that the real loss is the CD purchase. Radio plays used to not only pay me and THEN lead to that further CD income, but now Spotify has replaced both and pays far worse than either. “But Spotify pays $31.80 for 10,000 streams while radio only pays $0.12 for the same exposure!” I hear you saying. Wrong. Spotify pays $0.00318 per stream while radio pays $0.12 per “stream” (broadcast), and that’s the only number that matters (due to the aforementioned way in which radio works). So, not even counting the much larger cost of CD sales, Spotify has reduced my income by nearly 38x. This is all fuzzy math, but that checks out with my anecdotal experience and talking with older folks who were selling gold or platinum records pre-Napster. Streaming is NOT okay where it is right now. As a music listener I can’t argue that it’s not a better product, but as a music creator having my income slashed by at least 38x isn’t worth it. To give you an idea of a still-decent avenue for income making music and how far it’s fallen, I’m primarily a composer for film/TV, and broadcast royalties for a single broadcast of a single minute of underscore can pay between $0.99 to a few dollars for broadcast, cable, terrestrial TV. On the other hand, an entire yearly quarter’s worth of earnings for that same minute of music on a streaming service (untold thousands of streams) rarely pay a single dollar — usually more in the single-digit cent range. Do the math — it’s worse than 38x. On a recent royalty statement I calculated that streaming services paid 70x worse than cable. And to top it off, some streaming services are outright refusing to pay legally mandated writers’ royalties (the portion I’m supposed to retain and get paid for, no matter what, by law). It’s moved to cable, too — Discovery tried to pull a stunt last year where they just decided “no more royalties.” They walked it back, thankfully, but we all took it as a warning shot. Imagine your coding salary getting slashed from $100k to $2k, and imagine never having benefits in the first place, and having had all the costs associated with doing the job shifted from the company to you over the last twenty years, and you’ll get an idea of what it’s like to be a working musician or composer nowadays. breath To further clarify my point about streaming: Radio and albums were how people consumed music in the old days — the deal was that if you want something on-demand, you gotta shell out and buy the thing. Otherwise, endure ad breaks while waiting for the song you want to come on, listen to it once until who knows when, and hopefully you like all the other music along the way. Right? Now, we can listen to any music we want at any time, on demand. Album ownership is pretty much moot. And that’s great! Again, as a music listener, I love it. But this means that we’re getting the benefits of album ownership in the format of radio. What do people demand more — the benefits, or the format? Obviously there’s a bit of intertwining between the two, but I’m sure most people would say “I care more about being able to listen to what I want when I want” than “I care about being able to stream music” (even though obviously the latter enables the former). This is why piracy was so great for music listeners — it enabled the former. Now, for a small fee, we get the convenience of radio and the benefits of not only album sales, but also piracy, which we now have to compete with. They’re basically the same thing, though: you “own” the album and can thus listen to it whenever you want. At the end of the day, though, we’re paying for the more important of the two (album ownership) with the payment model of the lesser-valued (radio). Radio licenses worked for stations because they were (and continue to be) distributed amongst a large number of artists and labels, and could be negotiated down via the leverage that radio was ultimately driving album sales. Now, those ad payments are distributed amongst literally hundreds of thousands of more artists, and instead of a radio station going cheaper with the argument “but this will lead to more album sales via exposure,” Spotify can just use its leverage of “well, fuck you, what else are you gonna do?” It’s a mob mentality. They’re essentially the only game in town and they know it. Furthermore, not all streams are equal — just as radio stations would license in order to play a popular song more often (getting more ears glued to the ads in between), Spotify doesn’t pay Beyoncé and Joe Amateur the same per-stream rate. The lions get the lion’s share and the rest get the scraps divided up between them — but “the rest” is the overwhelming majority of the artists present on Spotify. The curve is exponential. Consumers are getting a categorically better product in every conceivable way and yet the payment to the actual creators of the product, the reason they’re actually there — to listen to the music - has gone down by such a degree that it’s laughable. It’s an unbelievable amount. It’s disastrous on a scale that is difficult to comprehend unless you live it. Music is rapidly becoming a field that only the already-extremely-rich can do professionally.
Mindwipe 6y ago
This is the exact opposite of everywhere else in the world tbf.

sireat 6y ago

300 pounds for 66k subscribers seems low by the standards of the yesterday. Presumably this income is solely through Youtube ads nothings else. By the old media standards (newspaper/TV/radio) reach of 66k would be good for a medium sized city.

VBprogrammer 6y ago
You are probably right, he could probably make more from it if he put in more effort but it's mostly something he does for fun. I remember the days when people would go full-time on YouTube with less subscribers than that.